Rob Halford Weighs In On Chik-Fil-A Scandal

Rob Halford has thrown his hat into the Chik-Fil-A debate, saying the discussion is a great example of Americans exercising the first amendment.
His comments coincide with news that Judas Priest have started writing brand new material, after their supposed farewell tour ended in May.
The story began when Chik-Fil-A's president Dan Cathy opposed gay marriage in a radio interview, resulting in both a protest of the food chain and some supporters queuing to spend money there.
Halford is credited as being the first openly gay metal musician, and told Noisecreep how great it is to see people from both sides of the debate come forth and discuss the issue.
"If you really get into the heart and soul of this great country, it's all about the constitution and the First Amendment and the freedom of speech... Everybody in this country has the right to say what they think and feel and what best represents them. The people at Chik-fil-A have the absolute right to say and do what they want."
He continued: "What you're seeing here are the elements of the American Constitution in all of their glory. It's a wonderful thing to see happening and talk about and the fact that everyone is discussing the gay rights issue is great."
So what are Rob's views on the matter, if it isn't already obvious? "I don't think that man thought too much about the business consequences of what he said, but I think he was standing for what he believes in. I don't agree with him at all, but God bless the man. It's as simple as that."
Meanwhile, Judas Priest has started writing brand new material - the first without long-term guitarist KK Downing who left the band last year. Rob says he and guitarist Glenn Tipton have "a tremendous amount in the vaults already" but says there's a lot of work before fans can hear it. "We'll see what we can do over the next couple of months, look at everything, lay it all out and then start the hard work of picking out the best material," he said.

Damn it. It's NOT about freedom of speech! It's about Chick-Fil-A giving $5 million to anti-gay organizations that have "Pray away the Gay" programs, which have been proven to be ineffective and psychologically harmful, and have lobbied to make homosexuality illegal in the U.S.
Dan Cathy can say and do whatever he wants, but it's still messed up to use your company to support prejudice.

on3andth3sam3 wrote:
Damn it. It's NOT about freedom of speech! It's about Chick-Fil-A giving $5 million to anti-gay organizations that have "Pray away the Gay" programs, which have been proven to be ineffective and psychologically harmful, and have lobbied to make homosexuality illegal in the U.S.
Dan Cathy can say and do whatever he wants, but it's still messed up to use your company to support prejudice.

Yes, it is. The man can have any views he wishes, he can donate to who he likes. This doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to prevent him from building a business. This is what the first amendment is all about. Regardless of what "prejudice" tag you want to put on it, which is also a stretch by the way.

on3andth3sam3 wrote:
Damn it. It's NOT about freedom of speech! It's about Chick-Fil-A giving $5 million to anti-gay organizations that have "Pray away the Gay" programs, which have been proven to be ineffective and psychologically harmful, and have lobbied to make homosexuality illegal in the U.S.
Dan Cathy can say and do whatever he wants, but it's still messed up to use your company to support prejudice.

Again...freedom of speech. Who are you to judge these people for what they say or do with their money?

BigMikeBDD wrote:
Yes, it is. The man can have any views he wishes, he can donate to who he likes. This doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to prevent him from building a business. This is what the first amendment is all about. Regardless of what "prejudice" tag you want to put on it, which is also a stretch by the way.

So you'd be totally fine if the owner of Dairy Queen came out as a racist and it turns out he'd been giving millions of dollars to the Klu Klux Klan?
Also, how is giving money to hate groups a "stretch" for the term prejudice? Do you own a dictionary?
Prejudice: noun, verb,
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

BigSpence wrote:
Again...freedom of speech. Who are you to judge these people for what they say or do with their money?

You're clearly missing the point. If there weren't freedom of speech, I couldn't say it's ok to be gay, so I'm grateful for it. This is about a different kind of speech. It's about saying that it's ok to use corporate money to oppress a minority group.
It's 2012, by now we should all know at least ONE gay person. Even if you don't like them (i'll admit some LGBT people can be real pricks) do you really think it's fine that a major restaurant chain is fighting against their social equality?
And yes, they are socially unequal. I live in michigan, where gay partners can't adopt as a couple, can get fired for being openly LGBT, they can even be denied housing.

on3andth3sam3 wrote:
BigMikeBDD wrote:
Yes, it is. The man can have any views he wishes, he can donate to who he likes. This doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to prevent him from building a business. This is what the first amendment is all about. Regardless of what "prejudice" tag you want to put on it, which is also a stretch by the way.
So you'd be totally fine if the owner of Dairy Queen came out as a racist and it turns out he'd been giving millions of dollars to the Klu Klux Klan?
Also, how is giving money to hate groups a "stretch" for the term prejudice? Do you own a dictionary?
Prejudice: noun, verb,
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

Being racist is not illegal. It's part of the first amendment. There's a reason why the KKK still exists...as does the Black Panthers and why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can get on national TV and express their hatred for white people.

on3andth3sam3 wrote:
BigMikeBDD wrote:
Yes, it is. The man can have any views he wishes, he can donate to who he likes. This doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to prevent him from building a business. This is what the first amendment is all about. Regardless of what "prejudice" tag you want to put on it, which is also a stretch by the way.
So you'd be totally fine if the owner of Dairy Queen came out as a racist and it turns out he'd been giving millions of dollars to the Klu Klux Klan?
Also, how is giving money to hate groups a "stretch" for the term prejudice? Do you own a dictionary?
Prejudice: noun, verb,
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

Oh and by the way, if Dairy Queen turned out to give money to the KKK, as an American, I don't have to give them my business. Simple as that. There's companies that support MAMBLA. I don't give them my business. According to you, they should also be able to prevent businesses from opening that support gay marriage, correct? Isn't Target one of them? By your laws, it would be ok to tell Target they cannot build because they support gay marriage. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Rob handled this with grace and recognizes that Chik-Fil-A is free to believe what they wish, rather than participating in a "kiss-in" at the restaurant like other gays in some spiteful, immature attempt at protest.
Why does the headline say "scandal" though? Doesn't that term imply a disgraceful action? If Dan Cathy were to be silenced about his views, wouldn't we be denying him HIS rights to free speech and practice his beliefs? Oh wait, I forgot, it's equality for everyone, unless you're Christian or conservative.
Just FYI, 55X more people showed up for Chik-Fil-A appreciation Day this week than for the "Kiss-In", and the restaurant saw record sales, so this is hardly been a downfall for the franchise. Kudos to them for standing up to political correctness!

Until I looked up the WP article to figure what "chik-fil-a" was in the first place I was surprised to find that it is supposed to be pronounced like "fillet". Before the case was clear to me as I assumed that whoever they are it's obvious that "chick filler" is anti-gay...

Sammy Mantis wrote:
Rob handled this with grace and recognizes that Chik-Fil-A is free to believe what they wish, rather than participating in a "kiss-in" at the restaurant like other gays in some spiteful, immature attempt at protest.
Why does the headline say "scandal" though? Doesn't that term imply a disgraceful action? If Dan Cathy were to be silenced about his views, wouldn't we be denying him HIS rights to free speech and practice his beliefs? Oh wait, I forgot, it's equality for everyone, unless you're Christian or conservative.
Just FYI, 55X more people showed up for Chik-Fil-A appreciation Day this week than for the "Kiss-In", and the restaurant saw record sales, so this is hardly been a downfall for the franchise. Kudos to them for standing up to political correctness!

I give up. Seriously. I've been frequenting this site for years, and every time a gay rights issue comes up, it's all about how the hate group is in the right, and being transgendered is an abomination. I know not everyone here is like that, but it's sickening nonetheless.
People state their opinions without reading the facts from multiple credible sources. Dan Cathy is a hate monger, and that has nothing to do with his religion. You can be Christian (he's baptist) and not try and oppress LGBT people. I feel so sorry for every gay employee of Chick-Fil-A.
The gay rights issue is out of the closet, and it's not going back in. Maybe one day you'll have an LGBT friend or child and see the other side of this issue from the angle of the people actually effected by it.

iommi600 wrote:
God bless Halford.
People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s.

God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion.
A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry.

EyesWideOpen wrote:
iommi600 wrote:
God bless Halford.
People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s.
God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion.
A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry.

Nothing wrong with uttering the words "I don't approve of gay marriage". Fair enough, no one is being hurt by that.
However, trying to help politicians who would impose a ban (which is a legitimization of the use of force against peaceful individuals) on homosexuality is just astoundingly immoral.
I hadn't heard of this case before, so if I have misinterpreted something please correct me.

EyesWideOpen wrote:
iommi600 wrote:
God bless Halford.
People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s.
God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion.
A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry.

Did you just make that up? That is so full of lies and false accusations it's not even funny.

This whole situation is so dumb. All the guy said was he didn't support gay marriage and now he's being attacked. Personally I don't care if gay people get married, if that's what makes them happy then go for it, and when you get down to it, their sexual preference isn't anybody's business but theirs anyway. I just hate when stuff like this happens, all he did was state his opinion and now everybody and their mother is trying to nail him to the wall

bearmod wrote:
This whole situation is so dumb. All the guy said was he didn't support gay marriage and now he's being attacked. Personally I don't care if gay people get married, if that's what makes them happy then go for it, and when you get down to it, their sexual preference isn't anybody's business but theirs anyway. I just hate when stuff like this happens, all he did was state his opinion and now everybody and their mother is trying to nail him to the wall

BigMikeBDD wrote:
EyesWideOpen wrote:
iommi600 wrote:
God bless Halford.
People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s.
God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion.
A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry.
Did you just make that up? That is so full of lies and false accusations it's not even funny.

BigMikeBDD wrote:
EyesWideOpen wrote:
iommi600 wrote:
God bless Halford.
People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s.
God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion.
A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry.
Did you just make that up? That is so full of lies and false accusations it's not even funny.

I'll give you a great tip buddy. Read your bible.
I knew my comment would get voted down because even though I did not make a single lie or false accusation in my comment, for some reason people still think that religion deserves respect.

onetonryan wrote:
BigMikeBDD wrote:
EyesWideOpen wrote:
iommi600 wrote:
God bless Halford.
People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s.
God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion.
A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry.
Did you just make that up? That is so full of lies and false accusations it's not even funny.
You couldn't tell? He's clearly a Biblical scholar.

Sammy Mantis wrote:
Just FYI, 55X more people showed up for Chik-Fil-A appreciation Day this week than for the "Kiss-In", and the restaurant saw record sales, so this is hardly been a downfall for the franchise. Kudos to them for standing up to political correctness!

I'm all for freedom of speech - let morons speak all they want so the rest of us can make fun of them, assuring future generations realize how stupid such ideas are.
But 'kudos to them for standing up to political correctness'? What? It's a good thing to donate to anti-gay organizations now, just because it's "standing up" to the current status-quo of equality and acceptance, something many people have been fighting for since it was decided blacks weren't just cattle and slaves? That's like respecting Dave Mustaine for "breaking the mould" by being a born-again, fundamentalist nutjob. That's not breaking the mould or standing up against something, that's just being completely backwards and behind the times.

Jimmyboba wrote:
jordo246 wrote:
Why is there even a gay rights issue, they're people who like the same sex, what's the big deal?
I wish the rest of the world was like you. I'd like to see people tackling serious issues as opposed to questioning people's rights to love whoever they damn well please.

A lot of people seem to need a group to look down upon.
Pretty sad. And of course religion plays a part in "hate'n them queers."

EyesWideOpen wrote:
onetonryan wrote:
BigMikeBDD wrote:
EyesWideOpen wrote:
iommi600 wrote:
God bless Halford.
People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s.
God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion.
A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry.
Did you just make that up? That is so full of lies and false accusations it's not even funny.
You couldn't tell? He's clearly a Biblical scholar.
So unless I'm a biblical scholar I can't criticize the bible?

I wouldn't say you have to be a scholar, but it would help if you've actually read it. Judging by your gross generalization, I'd wager that you didn't. Best you distance from such comments lest you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about. In kind, I will spare you any critique of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because I only read the cliff notes. Fair enough?

Eyes Wide Open is somewhat correct, except for the fact that one of the fundamental concepts of original Christianity is the rejection of the old testament. That means that by definition, christians can pick and choose what they adhere to. They've been doing it for almost 2 millenia, when every hundred years or so, a new reform movement comes out and changes what is or isn't ok with the church (Eastern Orthodox>Roman Catholic>Russian Orthodox>Lutheran>Anglican>American Protestant...). Only the Jews have to follow the rules in the old testament (to the best of their abilities). Christians have never been fully bound to it, or they wouldn't be able to eat bacon, milk and meat together, or wear garments of mixed wool and linen.
As an American Jew, I couldn't care less about what the owner of Chik-Fil-A does or says. This isn't a Jewish theocracy, so gay rights or lack there-of can't personally offend me. I agree with Rob Halford, the owner can say/do what he wants. People also have the right to be offended, but that doesn't mean that the Chik-Fil-A guy is doing something wrong. People assume that just because it's an unpopular opinion, it's illegal.

I wouldn't say you have to be a scholar, but it would help if you've actually read it. Judging by your gross generalization, I'd wager that you didn't. Best you distance from such comments lest you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about. In kind, I will spare you any critique of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because I only read the cliff notes. Fair enough? [/quote]
You're correct I have not read it. But I have read passages and parts from it. Parts that are bad regardless of context.
Leviticus 25:44
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
Peter 2:18
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"
And also the part where god kills 99.99% of humanity in a flood because they displeased him. Women, children, babies, the elderly.
And also that because I'm an atheist, according to Christian views, I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. Simply for the crime of not believing.
I suppose now's the part where you tell me that I've read these things out of context or somesuch.

Once again, @EyesWideOpen (with all respect for the sake of debate) just because something is harsh or seems offensive (like having slaves, or the fact that Christians say that you will burn - cue evil sounding music), doesn't mean that it is not a valid statement.
Btw, on the topic of owning foreign slaves (from Leviticus), the rules actually are that the master must treat the slave better than himself. If there's only one bed, the slave gets it. When the slave is set free, he must be provided with a large sum of money and possesions. That's just as far as Judaism is concerned, I don't know about Peter.

eatfresh1736 wrote:
Once again, @EyesWideOpen (with all respect for the sake of debate) just because something is harsh or seems offensive (like having slaves, or the fact that Christians say that you will burn - cue evil sounding music), doesn't mean that it is not a valid statement.
Btw, on the topic of owning foreign slaves (from Leviticus), the rules actually are that the master must treat the slave better than himself. If there's only one bed, the slave gets it. When the slave is set free, he must be provided with a large sum of money and possesions. That's just as far as Judaism is concerned, I don't know about Peter.

What do you mean that those are valid statements? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that I would deserve to burn in unimaginable agony for all eternity simply because I don't believe in god?
And please don't try to justify slavery.

That was so well said by Rob. I was embarassed by the way people reacted to the whole Chik-Fil-A thing. It doesn't matter if you do not agree with somebody else. The first amendment is freedom of speech. Gays have started and funded groups that support gay marriage, so why can't an anti-gay group do the same? Its simple people, we all have the freedom of speech and just because you do not agree with the other does not mean you can tell them they cannot use their rights.

EyesWideOpen wrote:
I wouldn't say you have to be a scholar, but it would help if you've actually read it. Judging by your gross generalization, I'd wager that you didn't. Best you distance from such comments lest you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about. In kind, I will spare you any critique of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because I only read the cliff notes. Fair enough?

You're correct I have not read it. But I have read passages and parts from it. Parts that are bad regardless of context.
Leviticus 25:44
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
Peter 2:18
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"
And also the part where god kills 99.99% of humanity in a flood because they displeased him. Women, children, babies, the elderly.
And also that because I'm an atheist, according to Christian views, I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. Simply for the crime of not believing.
I suppose now's the part where you tell me that I've read these things out of context or somesuch.[/quote]
Actually, most of that is out of context.
Leviticus is supposed to pertain to the children of Levi - servants to the clergy, or something like that. So, all of those things from Leviticus aren't exactly supposed to apply to the general public.
That is the only quote I have ever heard that touches on homosexuality, at all. I'm not even sure if it means what people think it means. I kind of get the impression that it means that men deserve to be treated with more respect than women by the children of Levi.
That's also where it mentions the whole mixed fabrics, interacting with women in the 7 days surrounding her period, etc.

I'm not saying that you will burn, I'm saying that Christians have a right to say that you will burn.
I'm not condoning slavery. The stigma of slavery is such because of the terrible things that America has done less than 200 years ago, and yes, they WERE terrible. So were many, many other instances of slavery. But slavery is a word. Because of history, it has really negative connotations, but that's not the only way to use the word. If the word "servant" was used , would that make it better? Servant and slave mean the same thing, just not in today's vernacular. You can't compare an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew bible to today's use of vocabulary. The word "Eved (slave)" has been used as both a normal and morally correct form of servitude, as well as harsh and torturous slavery.

EyesWideOpen wrote:
You're correct I have not read it. But I have read passages and parts from it. Parts that are bad regardless of context.
Leviticus 25:44
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
Peter 2:18
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"
And also the part where god kills 99.99% of humanity in a flood because they displeased him. Women, children, babies, the elderly.
And also that because I'm an atheist, according to Christian views, I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. Simply for the crime of not believing.
I suppose now's the part where you tell me that I've read these things out of context or somesuch.

See eatfresh above, and also consider some historical context regarding slaves, or indentured servants, as a function of the economy at the time. This is the critical error so many people make when they start spewing Biblical quotes about slavery as "evidence" that the Bible promotes/supports opression. It is a simple mis-interpretation of the term. In other words, your applying the negative conotation of more modern slavery (ie African-Americans who were stolen and forced into labor). That is not to say that all slaves in Biblical times were appropriately acquired/treated/compensated, but many were.
As for the Leviticus quote; it is what it is. You can take it or leave it.

eatfresh1736 wrote:
Eyes Wide Open is somewhat correct, except for the fact that one of the fundamental concepts of original Christianity is the rejection of the old testament. That means that by definition, christians can pick and choose what they adhere to. They've been doing it for almost 2 millenia, when every hundred years or so, a new reform movement comes out and changes what is or isn't ok with the church (Eastern Orthodox>Roman Catholic>Russian Orthodox>Lutheran>Anglican>American Protestant...). Only the Jews have to follow the rules in the old testament (to the best of their abilities). Christians have never been fully bound to it, or they wouldn't be able to eat bacon, milk and meat together, or wear garments of mixed wool and linen.
As an American Jew, I couldn't care less about what the owner of Chik-Fil-A does or says. This isn't a Jewish theocracy, so gay rights or lack there-of can't personally offend me. I agree with Rob Halford, the owner can say/do what he wants. People also have the right to be offended, but that doesn't mean that the Chik-Fil-A guy is doing something wrong. People assume that just because it's an unpopular opinion, it's illegal.

The lack of gay rights should offend you as a human being, because this is the 21st century and people still feel the need to use third-world superstitious fairytales to justify bigotry and their attempts to keep certain people from enjoying rights most people take for granted.

The lack of gay rights should offend you as a human being, because this is the 21st century and people still feel the need to use third-world superstitious fairytales to justify bigotry and their attempts to keep certain people from enjoying rights most people take for granted.

I understand what you're saying, but you have to see it from my side. It's against my religion to be gay, and that's a fact (it's in our bible). If other people (who don't follow my religion) want to be gay, that's fine with me. However, I can't outright support gay rights because it conflicts with the rules imposed upon myself (the key word is "myself". I'm not preaching to anyone else.) I'm keeping my own limitations to myself. Judaism, as a rule, doesn't proselytize to non-Jews. Live and let live.

onetonryan wrote:
EyesWideOpen wrote:
You're correct I have not read it. But I have read passages and parts from it. Parts that are bad regardless of context.
Leviticus 25:44
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
Peter 2:18
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"
And also the part where god kills 99.99% of humanity in a flood because they displeased him. Women, children, babies, the elderly.
And also that because I'm an atheist, according to Christian views, I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. Simply for the crime of not believing.
I suppose now's the part where you tell me that I've read these things out of context or somesuch.
See eatfresh above, and also consider some historical context regarding slaves, or indentured servants, as a function of the economy at the time. This is the critical error so many people make when they start spewing Biblical quotes about slavery as "evidence" that the Bible promotes/supports opression. It is a simple mis-interpretation of the term. In other words, your applying the negative conotation of more modern slavery (ie African-Americans who were stolen and forced into labor). That is not to say that all slaves in Biblical times were appropriately acquired/treated/compensated, but many were.
As for the Leviticus quote; it is what it is. You can take it or leave it.

Yeh I think I'll leave the Leviticus quote. If you think it's ok to end some ones life because of their sexual orientation then I'm glad I don't know you.
And as I knew both you and eatfresh1736 both tried to justify slavery as I knew you would because as usual "Oh you're just not reading it right".
And neither of you seem to have anything to say about god committing genocide against the people he created even though he's supposed to be omniscient and so must have knew that they would turn against him although apparently he also gave us free will even though it is a logical impossibility for free will and omniscience to exist at the same time.
And to eatfresh1736. I fully acknowledge that people have the right to voice their thoughts on things.
I will always support that right, even the right to religion I will always support and respect.
However, that doesn't mean I have to support or respect the religion or opinion itself and it doesn't mean I have to be quiet about it. Good day.

even though it is a logical impossibility for free will and omniscience to exist at the same time.

You know, you're not the first person to have come with that. But saying that statement and expecting a quick "be all end all" answer is ridiculous (or worse, you're not interested in an answer at all). Do you know who discussed the free-will paradox? Only about hundreds of Jewish (and probably non-Jewish) philosophers and scholars. The existance of this paradox doesn't disprove G-d or the bible or anything. It just means that there is a lot we don't fully understand yet. Believe it or not, humanity has not answered every question that came our way, but that doesn't mean that our lack of knowledge proves or disporves anything. Classic logical fallacy: "I don't understand this, therefore it doesn't make sense."

eatfresh1736 wrote:
The lack of gay rights should offend you as a human being, because this is the 21st century and people still feel the need to use third-world superstitious fairytales to justify bigotry and their attempts to keep certain people from enjoying rights most people take for granted.
I understand what you're saying, but you have to see it from my side. It's against my religion to be gay, and that's a fact (it's in our bible). If other people (who don't follow my religion) want to be gay, that's fine with me. However, I can't outright support gay rights because it conflicts with the rules imposed upon myself (the key word is "myself". I'm not preaching to anyone else.) I'm keeping my own limitations to myself. Judaism, as a rule, doesn't proselytize to non-Jews. Live and let live.

So it's best to take millennia-old fairytales that were made up by desertmen over a modern, evolved humanist view?
Live and let live, aye, but can we start to live less like gullible bastards who still believe in primitive nonsense, and more like intelligent human beings?

eatfresh1736 wrote:
even though it is a logical impossibility for free will and omniscience to exist at the same time.
You know, you're not the first person to have come with that. But saying that statement and expecting a quick "be all end all" answer is ridiculous (or worse, you're not interested in an answer at all). Do you know who discussed the free-will paradox? Only about hundreds of Jewish (and probably non-Jewish) philosophers and scholars. The existance of this paradox doesn't disprove G-d or the bible or anything. It just means that there is a lot we don't fully understand yet. Believe it or not, humanity has not answered every question that came our way, but that doesn't mean that our lack of knowledge proves or disporves anything. Classic logical fallacy: "I don't understand this, therefore it doesn't make sense."

"I don't understand this, therefore it doesn't make sense".
Haha. Funny. I thought that that was what religious people did when they didn't understand something. The old argument from personal incredulity.
"Well I don't see how this makes sense, therefore god did it".
Also. I never claimed to be the first person to come up with the free will and omniscience thing. I brought it up because that alone disproves the Christian god according the laws of logic. There could still be a god. But if you take the bible as gospel and also accept logic then the Christian god does not exist.
You're way of thinking is stunning. You've got it all the wrong way round.
You seem to read the bible, take a conclusion from it then try and find ways to justify your conclusion.
This is the opposite of science and is completely illogical.
No one knows for sure whether there is a god or but personally, I can see absolutely no evidence for one and the number of like minded people is growing.
The days of taking morality from ancient books, riddled with lies, immorality, death, innacuracies and fallacies will one day be gone through the process of better education.

Yeh I think I'll leave the Leviticus quote. If you think it's ok to end some ones life because of their sexual orientation then I'm glad I don't know you.

Not what I said. The Bible says it's an abomination. I don't interpret that differently. That doesn't mean I hate gays or don't support gay rights. Quite the opposite.

And as I knew both you and eatfresh1736 both tried to justify slavery as I knew you would because as usual "Oh you're just not reading it right".

Well, you are. But as I said, it's not as much the literal context as it is the historical context. You're not the first to make this mistake.

And neither of you seem to have anything to say about god committing genocide against the people he created even though he's supposed to be omniscient and so must have knew that they would turn against him although apparently he also gave us free will even though it is a logical impossibility for free will and omniscience to exist at the same time.

God made this right in the New Testament. I encourage you to read about it. You'll learn a lot more than what I can tell you about here. God bless you, brother.

onetonryan wrote:
Yeh I think I'll leave the Leviticus quote. If you think it's ok to end some ones life because of their sexual orientation then I'm glad I don't know you.
Not what I said. The Bible says it's an abomination. I don't interpret that differently. That doesn't mean I hate gays or don't support gay rights. Quite the opposite.
And as I knew both you and eatfresh1736 both tried to justify slavery as I knew you would because as usual "Oh you're just not reading it right".
Well, you are. But as I said, it's not as much the literal context as it is the historical context. You're not the first to make this mistake.
And neither of you seem to have anything to say about god committing genocide against the people he created even though he's supposed to be omniscient and so must have knew that they would turn against him although apparently he also gave us free will even though it is a logical impossibility for free will and omniscience to exist at the same time.
God made this right in the New Testament. I encourage you to read about it. You'll learn a lot more than what I can tell you about here. God bless you, brother.

Ugh dude... Seriously. That last paragraph. It's such a shame that people believe this stuff. And the way that people try to justify horrible acts. And then at the end, always the self righteousness.

EyesWideOpen wrote:
onetonryan wrote:
Yeh I think I'll leave the Leviticus quote. If you think it's ok to end some ones life because of their sexual orientation then I'm glad I don't know you.
Not what I said. The Bible says it's an abomination. I don't interpret that differently. That doesn't mean I hate gays or don't support gay rights. Quite the opposite.
And as I knew both you and eatfresh1736 both tried to justify slavery as I knew you would because as usual "Oh you're just not reading it right".
Well, you are. But as I said, it's not as much the literal context as it is the historical context. You're not the first to make this mistake.
And neither of you seem to have anything to say about god committing genocide against the people he created even though he's supposed to be omniscient and so must have knew that they would turn against him although apparently he also gave us free will even though it is a logical impossibility for free will and omniscience to exist at the same time.
God made this right in the New Testament. I encourage you to read about it. You'll learn a lot more than what I can tell you about here. God bless you, brother.
Ugh dude... Seriously. That last paragraph. It's such a shame that people believe this stuff. And the way that people try to justify horrible acts. And then at the end, always the self righteousness.

I suppose spreading the good word is better than wishing eternal damnation on you because you follow a different religion.

This is why America sucks. Businesses lobbying political groups to do what the owner wants. Can't you guys please stop doing what the money says and do something that's actually good for your country? Probably a little late for that I guess.
Rob makes a good point what the guy did is legal and he is well within his rights to say what he wants, but in most country's we call that bribery and your politicians would be shamed.

BigSpence wrote:
on3andth3sam3 wrote:
Damn it. It's NOT about freedom of speech! It's about Chick-Fil-A giving $5 million to anti-gay organizations that have "Pray away the Gay" programs, which have been proven to be ineffective and psychologically harmful, and have lobbied to make homosexuality illegal in the U.S.
Dan Cathy can say and do whatever he wants, but it's still messed up to use your company to support prejudice.
Again...freedom of speech. Who are you to judge these people for what they say or do with their money?

Again... freedom of speech. Who are you to stop these people from judging people for what they say or do with their money?

BigMikeBDD wrote:
"I dont think that man thought too much about the business consequences of what he said, but I think he was standing for what he believes in." You mean like record setting sales days?

Those people all showed up to show appreciation, not because they were regular customers. Most of those people will not keep coming back after a few weeks. Meanwhile, many customers who are liberals will take their business elsewhere. So, they only stand to lose in the long run.

I have to admit I am a resident of the great USA (United States of Amnesia)...we forgot the great values we live in the good old days..I think progress and change is good...but not too much. As for the gay issue?...no judgement here! I like all em...all girl action all the time. heh heh heh.

I would give my thoughts on the matter... but I have none. Because I don't care. I'm just here for guitar stuff... and free snacks.
Proper gent with a good head on his shoulders, that Rob Halford. Winked at me in the third row a few times as I sang along with "Beyond the Realms of Death" in New Orleans in '88. Made a lot of sense later...

Pretty well summed up. The dude can donate to any suppressive organisations he wants, and says he disagrees with gay marriage because of that "family values" BS, but it was an awful business decision on his part. It's easy to boycott a company and that's what is happening. As much as he can exercise his right to free speech, so can everyone else. What a fool.

Just like Dan Cathy has the right to say what he wants, we have a right to protest. Freedom of Assembly folks.
Lastly, it's not just about gay marriage. Dan Cathy funds actual HATE groups. Groups who want to outlaw homosexuality, not just gay marriage. Read up on Exodus International and the Family Research Council.
No one's saying that he doesn't have a right to say what he wants. Well, the sensible protesters aren't anyway.
And while I think that it's an abuse of power for a mayor to stonewall Chick-Fil-A from opening up in their city, I'm that there won't be a Chick-Fil-A in my city.

bearmod wrote:
This whole situation is so dumb. All the guy said was he didn't support gay marriage and now he's being attacked. Personally I don't care if gay people get married, if that's what makes them happy then go for it, and when you get down to it, their sexual preference isn't anybody's business but theirs anyway. I just hate when stuff like this happens, all he did was state his opinion and now everybody and their mother is trying to nail him to the wall

Social responsibility. If you don't mind what gay people do with their rights, you should be on the side of the people boycotting Chik Fil-A simply because at the moment in a lot of places they CAN'T do what they like and they have less rights than you do.

Freedom of speech?? Then why can't I swear on national T.V. or the radio. Why are these following words censored : Shit, Fuck . Why do I get arested for saying "bomb" on a plane? I'm glad Rob is being sensible, but you people aren't really thinking to the max on this. Make judgements based on what is right and what you believe. not what Rob Halford says. This guy is talking about getting rid of gays, and a lot of you here are saying he has the freedom of speech. But then the same people talk trash on the people in the Czech republic for holding Randy Blythe in custody for a crime under investigation. Don't get me wrong, I believe Randy is innocent, but he still needs a fair trial to prove it. Or even when Courtney Love makes another senseless remark about something. Most of you don't hesitate to attack her with harsh words right away. I'm just calling it like it is guys. The majority of you are hypocrites. Have your own beliefs and say what you want to say, but I advise you not to verbally attack a majority of people because it is just not morally right.

I think the US is a brilliant country, but there are parts of it that really suck. Gay people aren't hurting anyone, so I don't see what harm it does for them to marry. A massive debt and two wars should be enough for US citizens to worry about,, anything else is a distraction.

so many people acting as if Dan Cathy should be on different standards because he is a "public figure." No, he is not a public figure. The man is a private business owner. Nothing more, nothing less. His business just happens to be largely successful. He isn't a politician. Why would anyone in the LGBT community be remotely surprised that a christian man has christian beliefs?

Chick-fil-A financially supported a group that lobbied Congress not to oppose the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" law.
It's one thing to be opposed to same sex marriage, it's another to give money to a group that is okay with making homosexuality a crime carrying the death penalty. That's way, WAY over the line in my book.
Keep the rest of the discussion civil, guys.

I believe what Rob says is right that it's a great opportunity to see the American model of freedom in progress. He doesn't like gays, he can actively speak out against them and give money to organisations that campaign against them. Gay people wish to be treated equally so they hold a kiss-in at his restaurant. Both sides get their SAY. However, having your say should be slightly less of a priority than ensuring the equal rights and justice of a group of citizens. It is all well and good to say you hate blacks or gingers if you are a business owner because people can exercise their right to choose not to eat your food, but the government should ABOVE ALL protect the safety and equality of the people.

Face R1pper wrote:
Scourge441 wrote:
Chick-fil-A financially supported a group that lobbied Congress not to oppose the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" law.
It's one thing to be opposed to same sex marriage, it's another to give money to a group that is okay with making homosexuality a crime carrying the death penalty. That's way, WAY over the line in my book.
Keep the rest of the discussion civil, guys.
Fuck you before you sh1t stains ruined these news threads people could actually have proper discussions without the Gestapo popping in to write *checked* every 3 goddamn seconds, how about you piss off and let us discuss it the way we USED to you homo loving ****.

So you guys all take the time to research every business you frequent, and where they donate portions of their profits to? Hmmm, interesting. I just usually go with the best product for the best price... how socially unconscious and irresponsible of me!
I don't suppose anyone here plays guitar?

Because from what I am reading... if I understand correctly... the liberal minded are appalled and the conservative minded are defensive, and nobody is changing anybody else's minds... just a bunch of time wasting... Dale Carnegie was RIGHT! "Nobody ever won anything by arguing. It just entrenches the other side, and convinces them they are right in their opinion". "How to win friends and influence people"

onetonryan wrote:
EyesWideOpen wrote:
onetonryan wrote:
BigMikeBDD wrote:
EyesWideOpen wrote:
iommi600 wrote:
God bless Halford.
People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s.
God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion.
A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry.
Did you just make that up? That is so full of lies and false accusations it's not even funny.
You couldn't tell? He's clearly a Biblical scholar.
So unless I'm a biblical scholar I can't criticize the bible?
I wouldn't say you have to be a scholar, but it would help if you've actually read it. Judging by your gross generalization, I'd wager that you didn't. Best you distance from such comments lest you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about. In kind, I will spare you any critique of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because I only read the cliff notes. Fair enough?

Scourge441 wrote:
Chick-fil-A financially supported a group that lobbied Congress not to oppose the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" law.
It's one thing to be opposed to same sex marriage, it's another to give money to a group that is okay with making homosexuality a crime carrying the death penalty. That's way, WAY over the line in my book.
Keep the rest of the discussion civil, guys.

You know, as much as I dislike bigots like the chik-fil-a guy, I don't see what is immoral about that. Preferring a non-interventionist foreign policy is not the same as actively wanting gays murdered (although we shouldn't exclude the possibility that that was chik-fil-a guy's ultimate goal with his donations).